Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[outsider]

On fingers it could be much harder to tell..especially if confined to one finger .

I do not know how the dental expert came to his lack of conclusions ..wether it was from measurements and photos or examination of the actual injury on the victims body.

The way the investigation seems to have been carried out gives no confidence.

[nugnug]

correct me if im wrong but i think teeth marks are probably the most damning piece of forensic evidence you can have against somebody so i think would be the first thing you would look for.

[outsider]

If on a part of the body like the female breast as in the Naomi Smith case that would be valid Nugnug but that was not defensive.  If marks occurred in Defence like an attempt at a punch in the mouth then not as easy to tell...(knuckle grazing against edge of teeth ?) In defence again a victim my try pulling or scratching the assailants face in which a bite may be inflicted by the assailant upon the victims hand or fingers..

[Sandra Lean]

correct me if im wrong but i think teeth marks are probably the most damning piece of forensic evidence you can have against somebody so i think would be the first thing you would look for.

If the indentation is well formed, nugnug, you're right about how damning it can be. I don't think this particular mark was well enough defined to be sure - it wasn't a "bite mark" as such, with a bottom and top imprint, for example.

I'm not sure why Prof Bussuttil thought it might be teeth marks, but he was certainly of the impression that it could be. His remark on the stand was that the dental experts had said no, so he "could go no further with that."

It's interesting, since there was no defence pathology/forensics - if there had been any possibility that this could have been teeth marks, and that they could have been Luke's, I think they would have pushed it for all they were worth.

We're left with only three possibilities - it wasn't teeth marks at all, it may have been teeth marks,but they didn't match Luke's teeth, it may have been teeth marks but they were unable to match them to anyone else, but didn't want to say so as thatmight have undermined the case.

The thing that niggles a bit, and it may just be me, is that a man with Prof Bussuttil's reputation and experience raised this possibility in the first place

[nugnug]

dident he say something about tester cuts that his first impression was that it could have been an attempt at a fake suicide

[outsider]

The tester cuts stuff is in effect hearsay from someone who claimed to have spoke with the Prof. and who posted it up on a forum elsewhere.
It was an unusual murder with unusual elements which would throw up speculation as to what was going on.

[nugnug]

oh i see so there is no proof he ever really said that

[concerned]

And I don't have a defense Gordo------Do you?

Come to mines for some lunch tomorrow gordo and we can discuss this---Don't start work untill 3 so am free untill then. Bring a friend with you.

That will be a no then----offers open, away to bed now---You can let me know if you change your mind.

Is this some kind of threat? I wonder why you would resort to this type of reaction? seems an irrational reaction to a DNA report that was intended to answer one of your questions, something you take great comfort in that we don't answer them.

Oh and BTW son if you only knew!!

Well this came as a bit of a shock!----How on earth did you manage to read what I posted as some kind of threat?--------The report that is already away to the review board is something that has to be kept under wraps. It would do no good to make it public.------I am saying things to what you do make public. Now there has been a lot made of this DNA and at the end of the day no-one is being allowed to see what the experts who tested these items and the results of the findings in full where. Both the defence and the prosecution new the results at the time of the trial. The review board will be the ones to make their decision.---Not you or I or anyone else.---It doesn't matter about your BTW son Gordo, it is no easy road you tread, and you know this regardless of your statement. What you do make public leaves you open to mockery and that is fact.

[concerned]

Admin could you please put the delete option back onto the profile part so I can delete my account.

[Sandra Lean]

I was thinking about this whole DNA/defence/prosecution malarkey, and it strikes me as not only unfair, but surely a breach of human rights for anyone whose conviction rests heavily on DNA evidence.

People seem to miss the most obvious problem with cuts in "Legal Aid Funding" - those cuts don't affect the prosecution!! Whilst they keep their huge budgets for getting as many experts, reports, etc, etc as they need to "secure" a conviction, the defence is left with a fixed amount from which it has to do pretty much everything.

It's become more and more common for defence teams to rely on cross examining the prosecution's experts, rather than bringing in thier own, but this again misses a vital point.

It's all very well saying "the defence had the forensic results" or whatever, but what that actually means is (1) the defence team had the prosecution's forensic results, and (2) the defence team are - well, solicitors and QCs - NOT forensic experts.

That's why I believe so many convictions based on very dodgy scientific evidence are secured. The defence doesn't have the means to bring in proper experts to refute some of the absolute rubbish that is touted as "scientific" evidence by the prosecution, but neither do they have the expert knowledge required to properly cross examine the "experts" trotted out by the prosecution, in order to expose their claims as the nonsense they are.

Equality of arms? I don't think so.

[shirley]

Admin could you please put the delete option back onto the profile part so I can delete my account.

please dont leave concerned.......we need an alternative opinion.


What you are basically saying Sandra is that the justice system is a farce?

[nugnug]

Admin could you please put the delete option back onto the profile part so I can delete my account.

please dont leave concerned.......we need an alternative opinion.

dont worry im sure concrned will come back agian

[Sandra Lean]

Admin could you please put the delete option back onto the profile part so I can delete my account.

please dont leave concerned.......we need an alternative opinion.


What you are basically saying Sandra is that the justice system is a farce?

I've been suggesting something to that effect for several years Shirley.

[Sandra Lean]

The other thing I've been saying for several years is that right under our noses, day in and day out, people just like you and I are being convicted for crimes they did not commit.

The numbers are terrifying, and the tactics are as diverse as they are insidious. But more than anything else, it could happen to any one of us.

I know people don't get that - they hear (or see) the words and think, oh yeah, it could happen to anyone - anyone but me - it would never happen to me cos I'm never in trouble, etc etc etc. Those are the people most at risk, sadly, and I have the very sad experience of having met far, far too many of them, and their devastated families.

While we're debating all of the other issues, it might be worth keeping this post in mind.

[nugnug]

well the mackie case proved tha if cops will even fit up each other nobody's safe